On 9/21/2011 12:05, Patrick Elliott wrote:
> Yeah, that is kind of an interesting case. The question is what sort of
> interaction are you dealing with, with respect to a mirror, that isn't the
> same as if it hits something that doesn't have reflection?

Except the interactions with mirrors are the same as the interactions with 
the other stuff. There's only one wave equation.

I don't know the answer, but I'm not trying argue that the answer is simple 
and obvious, either.

>> Except you get different experimental results depending on whether you
>> see it or not. That indeed is the entire point.
>>
>
> But, its not. What is the fundamental difference between these categories of
> experiment design:
>
> 1. Two detectors, one farther away than the other, where you expect the
> first one to detect the entangled particle, but the farther one to not.
>
> 2. One detector, and one solid block, where the block is closer, again, with
> the expectation that you will get no result, since the entangled pair
> "stops" at the block, and never reaches the detector.
>
> 3. No detectors, but blocks in the same positions as above.
>
> You are proposing that "somehow" #3 is completely different, and that only
> #1, and maybe #2, somehow, produce a predictable effect.

Uh, no. This is nonsense. I'm proposing no such thing. What did I say that 
lead you to believe that?

> Where exactly does the entangled second particle go, if it doesn't
> collapse into its twin, in case #3?

In all three cases, the entagled particles stop at either the detector or 
the block, depending on what's in their way. Why would you think otherwise? 
You realize that in every case there are two particles, yes? And an 
"entangled" particle needs to be entangled with some other particle, 
implying the existence of two particles?

I haven't any idea where you're coming from here.

> Oh, and its not about "prose". Language is critical to how we think. A great
> many things we failed to grasp in the past *precisely* because the language
> was inadequate to describe them, and new language had to be defined, before
> comprehension was possible. The words we use "color" our perceptions, and
> determine how, and even if, in some cases, we can examine a problem. I seem
> to even remember studies on this, though I can't think of exactly when, or
> where, I read about it.

Of course. I'm just pointing out that the people who describe entanglement 
don't talk about cats. They have mathematics that describe it.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   How come I never get only one kudo?

Post a reply to this message